Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

The Supreme Court that Article 32 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI) which serves as a remedial provision for enforcing fundamental rights, cannot be used to challenge the Court’s own judgment.  

• It was held in the case of Satish Chander Sharma & Ors. Versus State Of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. (2025).  

What was the Background of Satish Chander Sharma & Ors. Versus State Of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. (2025).

• 26.03.1974: 
  • The Himachal Pradesh State Forest Development Corporation Ltd. was incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The State of Himachal Pradesh owns 100% of the Corporation’s share capital. 
• Appointments of Petitioners: 
  • Petitioner 1: Appointed on 29.10.1975, superannuated on 31.01.2013. 
  • Petitioner 2: Appointed on 15.02.1988, superannuated on 30.09.2016. 
  • Petitioner 3: Appointed on 05.12.1981, superannuated on 30.11.2014. 
• 29.10.1999: 
  • The Himachal Pradesh Government notified the Corporate Sector Employees Pension Scheme, 1999, effective from 01.04.1999, granting pensionary benefits on par with state government employees. 
  • Employees opting for the scheme forfeited employer’s contribution to the CPF. 
  • The scheme followed the Central Civil Services (Pension and Commutation) Rules. 
• 21.01.2003:
  
  • A High-Level Committee was constituted to assess the financial viability of the 1999 Scheme. 
• 28.10.2003: 
  • The Committee submitted a report stating the scheme was financially unsustainable, due to: 
    • Uncertainty in interest rates. 
    • Declining recruitment in the public sector. 
    • Inability of the corpus fund to sustain pension payments equivalent to government employees. 
• 02.12.2004: 
  • The Government repealed the 1999 Scheme prospectively. 
  • Protected employees who had retired between 01.04.1999 and 02.12.2004 and opted for the scheme. 
  • Employees retiring after 02.12.2004 were excluded from pension benefits. 
• Post-2004: 
  • The Corporation amended its byelaws and implemented the repeal; the petitioners, though opted for the scheme, were denied pension. 
• 2009 – 2013: 
  • A batch of writ petitions was filed before the Himachal Pradesh High Court (lead case: P.D. Nanda v. State of H.P.). 
  • 19.12.2013: High Court allowed the petitions, declared the cut-off date ultra vires, and read down the repeal to include post-02.12.2004 retirees. 
• 28.09.2016: 
  • The Supreme Court reversed the High Court judgment in State of H.P. v. Rajesh Chander Sood and upheld the cut-off date and validity of the repeal. 
• 20.03.2018: 
  • A two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court, while issuing notice on the present petition, referred it to a three-judge Bench questioning the correctness of the Rajesh Chander Sood judgment. 
• Present Petition Filed: 
  • The three petitioners filed a writ under Article 32, claiming the Rajesh Chander Sood judgment was rendered per incuriam, and seeking parity with pre-2004 retirees

What were the Court’s Observations? 

The bench comprising Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and Ujjal Bhuyan made the following observations: 

• Maintainability and Res Judicata: 
  • The petition under Article 32 was held not maintainable. 
  • The issue had already been conclusively decided by the Supreme Court in Rajesh Chander Sood. 
• Finality of Supreme Court Decisions: 
  • Supreme Court judgments cannot be reopened via a writ petition under Article 32. 
  • The correct legal remedy is through a review petition, followed if needed by a curative petition. 
  • Allowing such writs would create judicial chaos and undermine the finality of litigation. 
• Per Incuriam Argument Rejected: 
  • The petitioners’ claim that Rajesh Chander Sood was per incuriam was firmly rejected. 
  • The Court found no binding precedent was overlooked, and the judgment was well-reasoned.
• State Policy and Valid Classification: 
  • The Court upheld the State’s authority to alter policies based on financial feasibility. 
  • The cut-off date of 02.12.2004 was found to be reasonable, justified, and not arbitrary. 
• Pension Scheme Not a Fundamental Right: 
  • The 1999 Scheme was introduced as a welfare measure, not a statutory right. 
  • The petitioners, being employees of a public sector undertaking and not state government employees, could not claim parity in service benefits. 
• Dismissal of Petition and Final Remarks: 
  • The writ petition was found to be wholly misconceived and was dismissed. 
  • No costs were imposed due to the petitioners being retired and elderly. 

What is Article 32 of the COI? 

Nature and Significance of Article 32: 

• Article 32 is referred to by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar as the "heart and soul of the Constitution." 
• It grants citizens the right to approach the Supreme Court directly for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights. 
• This is a remedial fundamental right, not substantive—it provides a mechanism to enforce other rights under Part III of the Constitution. 
• It is part of the basic structure of the Constitution and cannot be taken away, except in cases like emergencies under Article 359.

Legal Basis and Text of Article 32: 

Writs under Article 32: 

Key Principles and Doctrines Related to Article 32 

Locus Standi & PIL: 

• Initially, only an aggrieved person could move the Court. 
• Evolved into Public Interest Litigation (PIL) to allow filing on behalf of those unable to access justice. 
• Recognized in: 
  • A.B.S.K. Sangh v. Union of India (1981) 
  • S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1982) 

Res Judicata: 

• Doctrine of finality: Once a matter is decided under Article 32, it cannot be reopened. 
• Exception: Not applicable to habeas corpus or if rejected by High Court, SC can be approached. 

Rule of Laches: 

• Delay in filing can be a ground for dismissal. 
• No fixed limitation period; courts decide case-by-case (as held in Trilokchand Motichand v. H.B. Munshi, 1970). 

Article 32 vs Article 226 

Judicial Views & Important Observations: 

• Romesh Thappar Case: SC emphasized its duty as the protector and guarantor of Fundamental Rights. 
• SC has discretionary power under Article 32—can even entertain a letter as a petition if rights of poor/marginalized are violated. 
• No fixed procedural format for invoking Article 32; Courts may use inquisitorial approach over adversarial. 

Limitations and Misuse Concerns: 

• Cannot be used for: 
  • Contractual rights, private disputes, or rights covered under other laws. 
• During emergency (Article 359), rights under Article 32 can be suspended. 
• Supreme Court has expressed concerns over misuse and has sought to discourage frivolous petitions under Article 32.